Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

helps further the Israeli agenda...



Derek

It's really not a state secret.

Unless you depend on the US news media for your information.

Israel created Hamas.

Now they're using its existence to slaughter Palestinian civilians.

Ron Paul shares the details:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/528.html

Sounds about right. Unfortunately though, Hamas isn't doing itself favours by propelling rockets left, right and centre.
The problem with Israel is its killing innocent civillians and still using the past as its shield. It's made the world believe that 13 Israeli lives are worth more than 1000 Palestinians.
I guess once the US pulls its support from Israel, we'll finally see the peace process begin-neutrality is needed at the very least.

Whts goin on in gaza is really a point to think.....

its not a matter of wht hamas has done or wht israel has to do.....its tht

who r palestinians?

Arent they humans?....they r only muslims and israel hate them?.....

Y cant Israel invade germany for wht happened in the holocauste???

Where is now think tanks of the world who talk abt peace......

we dont ask peace for muslims only but we ask peace for humans....

all humans shud be equal.

daisy wrote:Whts goin on in gaza is really a point to think.....

its not a matter of wht hamas has done or wht israel has to do.....its tht

who r palestinians?

Arent they humans?....they r only muslims and israel hate them?.....

Y cant Israel invade germany for wht happened in the holocauste???

Where is now think tanks of the world who talk abt peace......

we dont ask peace for muslims only but we ask peace for humans....

all humans shud be equal.

Very fair and to the point Daisy, salute you for that.

yes! i agree with your point daisy!!

not all palestinians are muslims there are christians too

Actually thats true, and not so long ago, some of them were Jews. Needless to say, all original Palestinians-regardless of religion-did not agree with the occupation of Israel

wordyexpat wrote: Sounds about right. Unfortunately though, Hamas isn't doing itself favours by propelling rockets left, right and centre.

Good points well made.

wordyexpat wrote:I guess once the US pulls its support from Israel...

I can't see that happening. Israel, the US and the UK make up the Axis of Non-Evil.
The powerful Jewish lobbies in Washington are making sure the US (and the UK) stay onside. The Israelis are using American weapons too.

Not for nothing, but "Ron Paul shares the details" is about as encouraging a lead-in as "Here's more on the story from Fox News".

Del wrote:

wordyexpat wrote: Sounds about right. Unfortunately though, Hamas isn't doing itself favours by propelling rockets left, right and centre.

Good points well made.

wordyexpat wrote:I guess once the US pulls its support from Israel...

I can't see that happening. Israel, the US and the UK make up the Axis of Non-Evil.
The powerful Jewish lobbies in Washington are making sure the US (and the UK) stay onside. The Israelis are using American weapons too.

Israel does have a strong diplomatic/lobbying presence in Washington (lots of Jews disagree with Israel's foreign policy, and there are some vocal anti-Zionist groups in the Jewish community, so it's not entirely fair to speak of "Jewish lobbies"). But for a few hours more, the States are run by an administration that's beholden to conservative Christian elements as a vital part of its core group of supporters (conservative Christians tend to profess a great love of Israel, even though at the end of the day they don't really have much time for Jews themselves), that's drunk on oil money, and whose foreign policy staff is led by people who've always seemed uncomfortable outside of a Cold War paradigm. Those are the key pressure points, I think, that have kept Washington nodding at even the worst excesses of the current Israeli government. But Olmert's out soon, and in less than a day, the States will have a new President, one who is far less susceptible to many of the factors that have warped American foreign policy over the last eight years. As awful as things currently are, there's reason to believe that they'll change, soon, for the better.

Olmert's out soon, but I fear the right-wing Netanyahu is back on the scene. And to me, Obama is just another president. If he tries to change too much, he'll be out on his backside - or worse.

Del wrote:Olmert's out soon, but I fear the right-wing Netanyahu is back on the scene. And to me, Obama is just another president. If he tries to change too much, he'll be out on his backside - or worse.

He's a centrist, and many of a President's policy initiatives need the approval of Congress; he'll change less, particularly on the domestic front, than some folks would like. But his approach to foreign policy really is radically different from Bush's. From where I'm sitting, he's certainly not going to jump in and solve the ME crisis, but he *will* be an honest voice in Washington (for once). In terms of the U.S.' involvement there, this is the best time in decades for a lasting peace...but it's up to folks in the ME, not those in Washington, to insist on peace and to achieve it.

kullervo wrote:He's a centrist,

Perhaps centrist by name, but I think you'll find he's a bit further to the right than that, brother.

kullervo wrote:and many of a President's policy initiatives need the approval of Congress;

And many of them don't, as per Mr Bush's almost dictatorial behaviour over the last eight years.

kullervo wrote:From where I'm sitting, he's certainly not going to jump in and solve the ME crisis,

True, he'll do what's best for Israel.

kullervo wrote:but he *will* be an honest voice in Washington (for once).

I'm sorry?

kullervo wrote:In terms of the U.S.' involvement there, this is the best time in decades for a lasting peace...

Lasting peace will come to the ME when the people controlling the conflict decide.

kullervo wrote:but it's up to folks in the ME, not those in Washington, to insist on peace and to achieve it.

How is it up to the people of the ME? Are they in control of their own destiny? OK, put it this way, what are US military bases doing here?


Read Project for a New American Century - Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved in its drafting. You will find the US were planning a military presence in Iraq BEFORE Bush even became president.

Del wrote:Read Project for a New American Century - Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved in its drafting. You will find the US were planning a military presence in Iraq BEFORE Bush even became president.

I'll just take this last bit, to keep my response from totally fragmenting. Yep, PNAC was a creepy development with roots in the Nixon administration, back in the 1970s.

Luckily, though, PNAC was a fever-dream of one little group within one particular political party. That party is almost completely marginalized in contemporary U.S. politics, and its imperialist faction is roundly discredited.

As for the rest, I can't put it better than my home district's State Senator:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

kullervo wrote:To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

sure u r looking a new way forward apparently, but based on ur own interests and disrespect. bring ME under control by oppression.

kullervo wrote:To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

really?! what if what you build is being either destroyed or taken control by others? oh yeah....... you should build again based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

Too bad Ron Paul didn't find support within the GOP Republican Party for his presidency. As the US would be better off with Mr. Paul at the wheel. This is a veteran who votes consistently on Congress bills and has excellent knowledge of sound financial policies.

Although I favor Obama for a whole lot of things, I would rather see Ron Paul as President of the United States. Too bad, that ain't happening. He's a pragmatic persion, and the US citizens are not focussed for reality but rather on politicians that love easing financial measures in favor of them...

Ron Paul - a guy that has is facts right. Great politician. Too little respect for this man in the US.

kullervo wrote:Luckily, though, PNAC was a fever-dream of one little group within one particular political party. That party is almost completely marginalized in contemporary U.S. politics, and its imperialist faction is roundly discredited.

Unluckily, though, that one little group's fever-dream came to fruition - correct me if I'm wrong. And its imperialist, unmarginailsed policies are there for all to see in today's Iraq and Afghanistan.

That one little group was working for bigger groups.

Condi Rice - former Chevron executive. Did you know Chevron even named one of their tankers Condoleezza, before quietly changing its name to to Altair Voyager?

Iraqi president Karzi - former Unicol (oil-related company) executive.

Bush family - oil. The Bushes loaned some of their ships to the US military during the 1962 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. The names of the ships: Barbara, Houston and Zapata.
Barbara: H.W. Bush's wife's name.
Houston: Bush's home town at that time.
Zapata: the name of Bush's oil company.

Cheney - former Haliburton boss - oil-related operations.


I suppose this is all just a coincidence.